[Fontinst] Different map file fragments

Lars Hellström lars.hellstrom at residenset.net
Mon Jul 25 12:29:29 CEST 2005

At 17.44 +0200 2005-07-24, Peter Dyballa wrote:
>I usually did font installations with two tex files, the second to
>produce the MAP file fragment. Since my TeX has enough capacity I
>united both files like:
>A finstmsc.rc file contains
>	\adddriver{dvips}  {inst.map}

That's a twist I hadn't foreseen. I don't think it is what makes the
difference, though.

>The result was a MAP file fragment like:
>	fcdr8p fcdr8p <fcdr8p.pfb
>	fcdr8r fcdr8r <fcdr8r.pfb
>	fcdro8p fcdr8p <fcdr8p.pfb " 0.175 SlantFont "
>	fcdro8r fcdr8r <fcdr8r.pfb " 0.175 SlantFont "
>while with the former method I got:
>	fcdr8p Cardo <fcdr8p.pfb
>	fcdr8r Cardo <fcdr8r.pfb
>	fcdro8p Cardo <fcdr8p.pfb " 0.175 SlantFont "
>	fcdro8r Cardo <fcdr8r.pfb " 0.175 SlantFont "
>which pleases much more!

Indeed. Quite curious. I can think of nothing that would explain this.

>	\resetstr{PSfontsuffix}{.pfb}
>after inputting finstmsc.sty to allow fontinst to find the right PS
>font file did not change anything.

This, on the other hand, is the kind of configuration that it makes perfect
sense to put in the .rc file (provided all your fonts to download are in
PFB format, of course).

>How comes the difference? From a bug or from me?

Well, doing everything in one run _is_ unsupported usage. (While this
essentially only means that I don't test it and don't take it into account
when fixing bugs or implementing new features, I still think it's a good
idea to consider this a "don't do that".) However I don't think it is the
real reason of the problem you're seeing.

Lars Hellström

More information about the fontinst mailing list